Scrofini v. Elizabeth

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Scrofini v. Elizabeth

226 A.D.2d 523, 640 N.Y.S.2d 818, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4407

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 15, 1996·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Scholnick, J.), dated April 19, 1995, which granted the separate motions of the defendants Victory Memorial Hospital and M. Elizabeth G. Sebollena for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as time-barred.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The court correctly determined that the continuous treatment doctrine does not apply and dismissed the action as untimely (see, Jorge v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 79 NY2d 905). Sullivan, J. P., Copertino, Santucci and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Scholnick, J.), dated April 19, 1995, which granted the separate motions of the defendants Victory Memorial Hospital and M. Elizabeth G. Sebollena for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as time-barred.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The court correctly determined that the continuous treatment doctrine does not apply and dismissed the action as untimely (see, Jorge v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 79 NY2d 905). Sullivan, J. P., Copertino, Santucci and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Scrofini v. Elizabeth, 226 A.D.2d 523, 640 N.Y.S.2d 818, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4407 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

226 A.D.2d 523 (Scrofini v. Elizabeth) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related